Comparing Optimistic and Pessimistic Constraint Evaluation in Shape-constrained Symbolic Regression

Created by W.Langdon from gp-bibliography.bib Revision:1.8051

@InProceedings{haider:2022:GECCO,

• author = "Christian Haider and Fabricio {De Franca} and Gabriel Kronberger and Bogdan Burlacu",
• title = "Comparing Optimistic and Pessimistic Constraint Evaluation in Shape-constrained Symbolic Regression",
• booktitle = "Proceedings of the 2022 Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference",
• year = "2022",
• editor = "Alma Rahat and Jonathan Fieldsend and Markus Wagner and Sara Tari and Nelishia Pillay and Irene Moser and Aldeida Aleti and Ales Zamuda and Ahmed Kheiri and Erik Hemberg and Christopher Cleghorn and Chao-li Sun and Georgios Yannakakis and Nicolas Bredeche and Gabriela Ochoa and Bilel Derbel and Gisele L. Pappa and Sebastian Risi and Laetitia Jourdan and Hiroyuki Sato and Petr Posik and Ofer Shir and Renato Tinos and John Woodward and Malcolm Heywood and Elizabeth Wanner and Leonardo Trujillo and Domagoj Jakobovic and Risto Miikkulainen and Bing Xue and Aneta Neumann and Richard Allmendinger and Inmaculada Medina-Bulo and Slim Bechikh and Andrew M. Sutton and Pietro Simone Oliveto",
• pages = "938--945",
• address = "Boston, USA",
• series = "GECCO '22",
• month = "9-13 " # jul,
• organisation = "SIGEVO",
• publisher = "Association for Computing Machinery",
• publisher_address = "New York, NY, USA",
• keywords = "genetic algorithms, genetic programming, prior knowledge, symbolic regression, shape constraints",
• isbn13 = "978-1-4503-9237-2",
• DOI = "doi:10.1145/3512290.3528714",
• abstract = "Shape-constrained Symbolic Regression integrates prior knowledge about the function shape into the symbolic regression model. This can be used to enforce that the model has desired properties such as monotonicity, or convexity, among others. Shape-constrained Symbolic Regression can also help to create models with better extrapolation behavior and reduced sensitivity to noise. The constraint evaluation can be challenging because exact evaluation of constraints may require a search for the extrema of non-convex functions. Approximations via interval arithmetic allow to efficiently find bounds for the extrema of functions. However, interval arithmetic can lead to overly wide bounds and therefore produces a pessimistic estimation. Another possibility is to use sampling which underestimates the true range. Sampling therefore produces an optimistic estimation. In this paper we evaluate both methods and compare them on different problem instances. In particular we evaluate the sensitivity to noise and the extrapolation capabilities in combination with noise data. The results indicate that the optimistic approach works better for predicting out-of-domain points (extrapolation) and the pessimistic approach works better for high noise levels.",
• notes = "GECCO-2022 A Recombination of the 31st International Conference on Genetic Algorithms (ICGA) and the 27th Annual Genetic Programming Conference (GP)",

}

Genetic Programming entries for Christian Haider Fabricio Olivetti de Franca Gabriel Kronberger Bogdan Burlacu

Citations